Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 156 posts

Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution

#61

Post by embedding-shape »

nielsbot wrote: post #38
Lerc wrote: post #35

It's possibly worth noting that the source for this is an application for a permit > GW Ranch received a permit from the state of Texas allowing the gas power plant to emit 33 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If the project emitted that much CO2, it would be the largest single source of pollution in the United States Immediately following that is the text "It’s worth noting that companies rarely em…

You're right--it's probably fine. Why focus on this one source of pollution when there are others?

> Why focus on this one source of pollution when there are others?

Couldn't you just say this about all the others too, then why do anything at all? If you wanted to actually reduce pollution, doesn't it make sense that everyone focuses on a few first, then hopefully maybe the rest could fall in line?

Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution

#62

Post by Lerc »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #37
johannesrexx wrote: post #30

[flagged]

> {THING_I_WISH_DID_NOT_EXIST} Judas H. Priest there is no such thing. Forget newspeak, get out of your bubble and find actual facts from contrasting sources, make your own informed conclusion. Fact finding is not a dirty word. I mean, two words.

I am all for fact finding, but it does require being clear about what you are specifically talking about. I have no idea what "climate pollution" is supposed to mean, is it exclusively CO2? is it CO2 and methane? Does it cover water contamination? Does that water contamination include temperature as a factor? Is water redirection counted? Is particulate matter released into the air included. Is it more or less important than particulate matter released into water. What about the make-up of the particulates?

And if you do accept any set of those things, When they talk about the top one , there is an assumption that there is a known way to rank all of those things. Show me that before you make a claim that one outranks another, otherwise we are talking about an imaginary scale.

Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution

#63

Post by bix6 »

Lerc wrote: post #49
nielsbot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right--it's probably fine. Why focus on this one source of pollution when there are others?

Because without enough information to truly place it in context, you may be focusing on something that may not have a notable impact on the overall problem. For starters, why focus on the plant being built when it has been permitted. If you focused on the permitting process presumably you could prevent many instances simultaneously.

How would focusing on one of the largest new CO2 emitters not have a notable impact? It probably shouldn’t have been permitted in the first place so I’m with you let’s block it there next time. But in the meantime… we should just let it get built?

Edit: https://cleanview.co/reports/behind-the-meter-data-centers

Texas is just ripping through these things since it’s so permissive. That’s troubling for the other states who will all inevitably bear some burden.

Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution

#64

Post by nostrebored »

embedding-shape wrote: post #61
nielsbot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right--it's probably fine. Why focus on this one source of pollution when there are others?

> Why focus on this one source of pollution when there are others? Couldn't you just say this about all the others too, then why do anything at all? If you wanted to actually reduce pollution, doesn't it make sense that everyone focuses on a few first, then hopefully maybe the rest could fall in line?

It was sarcasm. It's also not particularly insightful. "AI data centers" get immense scrutiny right now. Astoria has a similar generation capacity in a much denser (and human populated!) area.

Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution

#65

Post by trhway »

roughly wrote: post #59

But just think, when the climate collapses and we can’t go outside anymore for large portions of the year, we’re gonna be Really happy we’ve got all this AI slop to keep us entertained!

we'll have cyber-organic bodies by that time which will do fine in the acid rain in 50 C heat with 100 mph light breeze.

Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution

#66

Post by Lerc »

jakebol wrote: post #57
Lerc wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In broad strokes I tend to agree. I think there is a fairly good path to moving most things to electricity and in turn moving most electricity generation to renewables. The more nuanced view is that I would support a residual use of fossil fuels for niche applications that require the properties of the fuel in instances where no known substitute solution would do the job. By and large, renewables are marching towards…

It’s largely associated methane co-produced from oil production in the Permian. The economics of co-production means that the gas is often the cheapest in the nation and can have negative prices during large oil production swings. I believe it went nearly -$10 MMBtu this year at one point.

That would suggest if no-one purchased it, it would just be flared off. Does the negative price come about because of pathological financial conditions, or is it the case that the producers are financially penalised for flaring?

Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution

#67

Post by bell-cot »

nielsbot wrote: post #38
Lerc wrote: post #35

It's possibly worth noting that the source for this is an application for a permit > GW Ranch received a permit from the state of Texas allowing the gas power plant to emit 33 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If the project emitted that much CO2, it would be the largest single source of pollution in the United States Immediately following that is the text "It’s worth noting that companies rarely em…

You're right--it's probably fine. Why focus on this one source of pollution when there are others?

Because combining "Amazon", "top source" "climate", and "pollution" should make this headline a top source of the clicks that Ars needs to pay its own bills?

Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution

#68

Post by pixl97 »

BeetleB wrote: post #60
tptacek wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because they have open permitting and encourage development. But they are also the largest producers of fossil fuels in the country.

They're actually not the highest on a per capita basis. 3 states produce more than double Texas's, by that metric.

I think you're talking about coal production that's sold to other states. Texas leads in both coal and natural gas consumption by far. Texas produces an insane amount of energy.

Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution

#69

Post by throwaway473825 »

Lerc wrote: post #43
AgentOrange1234 wrote: post #2

This is so unacceptable. Build as many data centers as you want, but fossil fuels NEED to stop yesterday.

In broad strokes I tend to agree. I think there is a fairly good path to moving most things to electricity and in turn moving most electricity generation to renewables. The more nuanced view is that I would support a residual use of fossil fuels for niche applications that require the properties of the fuel in instances where no known substitute solution would do the job. By and large, renewables are marching towards…

While a good point, it also creates lock-in effects. If you look at the top EV adopters, they barely use gas power. This likely isn't a coincidence.

Now you will have the AI lobby pushing against EVs (so that oil drilling can create gas as a byproduct), as if it wasn't already an uphill battle in the US...

Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution

#70

Post by trhway »

fragmede wrote: post #22
dev_l1x_be wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine that you need to explain to a type II alien that your species still burns things.

Imagine they got here without burning anything, ever, in the history of their species.

Once the Ancient Greeks had copper and iron they could potentially do wind and hydro electricity and metal-air batteries - and the civilization would probably go just fine without fossil fuels.
Post reply on HN